kimmy Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 ETA is it just me or does the text look bolded? Yes, it looks like Scotty's post about trolling contains an unclosed tag. Up yours, Scotty! Close your fricken tags! -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Yes, it looks like Scotty's post about trolling contains an unclosed tag. MEMBER REMOVAL Any user who fails to close their tags will be banned without warning. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Them clothes got laundry numbers on them. You remember your number and always wear the ones that has your number. Any man forgets his number spends a night in the box. These here spoons you keep with you. Any man loses his spoon spends a night in the box. There's no playing grab-ass or fighting in the building. You got a grudge against another man, you fight him Saturday afternoon. Any man playing grab-ass or fighting in the building spends a night in the box. First bell's at five minutes of eight when you will get in your bunk. Last bell is at eight. Any man not in his bunk at eight spends the night in the box. There is no smoking in the prone position in bed. To smoke you must have both legs over the side of your bunk. Any man caught smoking in the prone position in bed... spends a night in the box. You get two sheets. Every Saturday, you put the clean sheet on the top... the top sheet on the bottom... and the bottom sheet you turn in to the laundry boy. Any man turns in the wrong sheet spends a night in the box. No one'll sit in the bunks with dirty pants on. Any man with dirty pants on sitting on the bunks spends a night in the box. Any man don't bring back his empty pop bottle spends a night in the box. Any man loud talking spends a night in the box. You got questions, you come to me. I'm Carr, the floor walker. I'm responsible for order in here. Any man don't keep order or fails to close their tags spends a night in the box. Edited January 3, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
charter.rights Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Oh piss off the halligan tool is used worldwide. I've seen them in the local fire department and I know they are used by British and Australian firefighters. Ah...the internet. That's the the best that a poser can do.... In Canada, and abroad they are called the "Kelly tool" (follow the link and scroll down to page 18) but you wouldn't know that when you only refer to American sources. It is not used widely for rescue operations but might occasionally be pulled out for salvage operations. The fire fighters axe is the number one choice for general use. Nothing you have done on this forum has given me any reason to trust you on this, and if that "faker" comment is any indication you won't trust me. So I guess we are left with the video I linked of the firefighter with 20 years of experience. As a poser your trust is of no consequence. You aren't even a real Metis so why would anyone trust anything else you say, especially since you are foolishly wrong most of the time. Stop trying to be a big boy and go play with the girls. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Ah...the internet. That's the the best that a poser can do.... In Canada, and abroad they are called the "Kelly tool" (follow the link and scroll down to page 18) but you wouldn't know that when you only refer to American sources. It is not used widely for rescue operations but might occasionally be pulled out for salvage operations. The fire fighters axe is the number one choice for general use. The kelly tool and halligen tool are different things, the halligen tool is based on the kelly tool. This is a kelly tool This is a halligan tool Notice the difference? And you would be smart to use the internet ya might learn something. My link Photo 1 shows the roof hook and the Halligan bar. The Halligan bar is the most well known tool in the fire service. Invented by Hugh A. Halligan, a New York City firefighter, the Halligan bar is used primarily for forcible entry operations. It is the one tool from which we can benefit the most. Law enforcement agencies also benefit from this tool when they are forcing open doors to serve warrants. There are many Halligan bars on the market: the Halligan bar, the Hooligan bar and the Pro-Bar. What's that a Canadian source calling it a Halligan bar? Clearly this guy must be misinformed, oh but wait. Mark van der Feyst is a 10-year veteran of the fire service and works for the City of Woodstock Fire Department in Ontario. He is an instructor for the PennsylvaniaState Fire Academy and the Justice Institute of BC and an associate professor of Fire Science for Lambton College. and guess what else I found.My link Clothing itself can also help rescuers remove the victim. For the most part, a fire victim’s clothing cannot be counted on as a drag device. For example, at a 2 a.m. residential fire, a victim’s clothing can range from a T-shirt and shorts to nothing at all. Rescuing a victim wearing little or no clothing is more difficult than rescuing a clothed person; Victims will be sweaty as they are exposed to the heat and fire conditions and dragging or removing a person who is sweaty and unconscious is like trying to drag a bag of cement with Vaseline all over it. While it’s easier to drag a clothed victim the clothing can hinder create friction and resistance. When the victim has been located, a quick removal needs to be initiated. The distance from the victim’s location to the exit points determines next steps. Search teams often begin their searches at the front door but rescuers do not want to drag a victim all the way back to the front door if they do not have to. Using a window in the room where the victim was found reduces travel time. In a typical bedroom, the distance from the bed to the window is about five feet and this allows for a quick removal. In some cases, the victim may be found in a hallway or other location with no nearby windows and rescuers will have to travel to an exit point. It never once mentions carrying, the writer of this article is the same as the other one. Mark van der Feyst is an 11-year veteran of the fire service working for the City of Woodstock Fire Department in Ontario. He teaches in Canada, the United States and India. He is a local level suppression instructor for the Pennsylvania State Fire Academy, an instructor for the Justice Institute of BC and a professor of fire science for Lambton College. I never claimed to be an expert, I never claimed any experience at all, but the one thing I'm good at is research. I never make a claim without at least a cursory investigation, while it may take me some time to track down a source I always have one. You on the other hand claim to be a firefighter, yet you don't know you don't carry victims anymore to avoid smoke inhalation and because dragging is easier, and you don't know the difference between a kelly bar and a halligan bar. Do everyone in you jurisdiction a favour, quit. As a poser your trust is of no consequence. You aren't even a real Metis so why would anyone trust anything else you say, especially since you are foolishly wrong most of the time. Stop trying to be a big boy and go play with the girls. Yes because clearly your omnipotent and know more about me and my family history than I do. Oh and way to be a sexist. Your also a loser trying to gain back some of your ego. Edited January 3, 2011 by TrueMetis Quote
charter.rights Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 The kelly tool and halligen tool are different things, the halligen tool is based on the kelly tool. This is a kelly tool This is a halligan tool Notice the difference? And you would be smart to use the internet ya might learn something. My link What's that a Canadian source calling it a Halligan bar? Clearly this guy must be misinformed, oh but wait. and guess what else I found.My link It never once mentions carrying, the writer of this article is the same as the other one. I never claimed to be an expert, I never claimed any experience at all, but the one thing I'm good at is research. I never make a claim without at least a cursory investigation, while it may take me some time to track down a source I always have one. You on the other hand claim to be a firefighter, yet you don't know you don't carry victims anymore to avoid smoke inhalation and because dragging is easier, and you don't know the difference between a kelly bar and a halligan bar. Do everyone in you jurisdiction a favour, quit. Yes because clearly your omnipotent and know more about me and my family history than I do. Oh and way to be a sexist. Your also a loser trying to gain back some of your ego. Hardly. Poser. You are still citing American sources, and we don't use it in Canada.Make sure you read your citations before you make claims the articles don't support. The SOP for most stations is that a victim is to be removed from the building as fast as possible. Dragging doesn't do it and the concern for "potential" smoke inhalation is not a priority. Rather without rescue the victim would likely be dead and so if the victim sucks a bit of smoke then it is not an issue as long as we get them out quickly. I'm telling you poser that I have more knowledge and experiences and you are completely and foolishly wrong (again). Give it up you have been pwned (again). Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Saipan Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 As a poser your trust is of no consequence. You aren't even a real Metis so why would anyone trust anything else you say, especially since you are foolishly wrong most of the time. Stop trying to be a big boy and go play with the girls. When you're losing debate try name calling and belittling. Just to show you have no argument left Quote
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Perhaps. But posing a make-believe scenario - a fairy tale - with no basis in reality and then asking for a review of the "logic" is, well, kinda funny actually. I'm honestly confused as to why you or anyone would consider that scenario to even be unlikely, never mind impossible. Basically you have invalidated your own, original statement, by saying that it cannot be proven true. I said no such thing. I said it cannot be proven false, therefore it is silly to state it is. However, from the point of view of affirmative action programs - regardless of what is going "through the minds" of hiring managers, visible minority is a target group - not any race or skin colour. Perhaps so but I think it's hardly a stretch to consider that in a particular case there is only one 'visible minority' candidate, and that the candidate happens to be Black. Nor do I consider it a stretch that a manager under pressure to increase minority representation would choose that candidate over other white candidates. Nor can I really understand how anyone would consider that to be far fetched. Let me show you exactly how your ideology shines through here because you don't have a clue how affirmative action works: My 'ideology' is irrelevent to this discussion. Logic and knowledge of real world application is what's important, and your argument seems entirely lacking in both. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 As for being the "best example" of racism in the West, maybe you haven't traveled much. "Even in the US" is a common segue used in this forum when no relevant Canadian data or example is to be found. You're welcome to englighten me on where else in the Western world racism reached the levels of the U.S., with its 'whites only" fountains and restaurants. And the issue with affirmative action is its appeal to liberals who see it in place in the United States and seek to emulate it here. The problem is we don't have the racist history of the United States or its current racial problems. Thus AA is seeking to address issues we do not have. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Is this your opinion? Can you back this up with a credible Canadian citation? CTV News In addition, unsaid is the fact that a very large proportion of Canada's visible minority community are first generation immigrants, and so lack the language skills and background required to pass even the newer, watered down tests. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Yes the following piece of markup further up the page does not get terminated (has no close tag). <strong class='bbc'> Its in Scotties post, so hes the only one that can fix it. Its a bug in the the code that validates posts. Well it's not like it's something I entered! In point of fact, I don't understand what happened with that post. I originally posted the citation from thes rules, then had a second thought, and edited it to remove the name of the person to whom I was responding. This worked fine, except that when I look at the post now, it has two citations of the rules, one responding as if to the other. But when I go in to edit it, there is only one rule, and the original words I was responding to. It's very strange. I will try to delete the post entirely. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Correct...no blacks, asians, or women are interested in fixing it either. NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
dre Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Well it's not like it's something I entered! In point of fact, I don't understand what happened with that post. I originally posted the citation from thes rules, then had a second thought, and edited it to remove the name of the person to whom I was responding. This worked fine, except that when I look at the post now, it has two citations of the rules, one responding as if to the other. But when I go in to edit it, there is only one rule, and the original words I was responding to. It's very strange. I will try to delete the post entirely. No sweat dude. I didnt figure you actually entered them in... when you copied that exerpt from the rules you grabbed some html tags with it. You wouldnt even have noticed. Normally that stuff gets scrubbed out server side when posts are submitted but it seems like it got missed. Minor bug in the system it looks like. No big deal You fixed it, it looks like. Edited January 3, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 MEMBER REMOVAL Any user who fails to close their tags will be banned without warning. ------------------------------------------------------------------- NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I understand a heated argument about abortion or God getting out of hand and degenerating into personal attacks and pointless and unimpressive insults, but an argument over firefighter tools? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 When you're losing debate try name calling and belittling. Just to show you have no argument left NO TROLLING/FLAMING Do not post inflammatory remarks just to annoy people. If you are not bringing anything new to the argument, then do not say anything at all. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Oleg Bach Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 We had a thread on this (funny) video already. This provocative l'il number as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeWL9HzVrWg Affirmative action does not mean whites do NOT need to apply - It means in our socialist capitalist corporate cuture - those who are intelligent - aware - informed and wise are shunned and not need apply - the world thrives on the mediorcre--want a job? Play stupid..and being a short black lesbian Spanish speaking mentally ill person is helpful. Quote
charter.rights Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 When you're losing debate try name calling and belittling. Just to show you have no argument left Nope. I'm not into the "Saipan method". I am merely calling a spade, "a spade". We've already established that TrueMetis misappropriated his name and has no true metis lineage. Now he is pretending to be knowledgeable of firefighting equipment and he is clearly out of his league. Calling him a poser is restating a fact, not an ad hominem. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 You're welcome to englighten me on where else in the Western world racism reached the levels of the U.S., with its 'whites only" fountains and restaurants. Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. And the issue with affirmative action is its appeal to liberals who see it in place in the United States and seek to emulate it here. The problem is we don't have the racist history of the United States or its current racial problems. Thus AA is seeking to address issues we do not have. Of course....ain't never been no "racism" in Canada...no suh! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Nope. I'm not into the "Saipan method". I am merely calling a spade, "a spade". We've already established that TrueMetis misappropriated his name and has no true metis lineage. Now he is pretending to be knowledgeable of firefighting equipment and he is clearly out of his league. Calling him a poser is restating a fact, not an ad hominem. BE POLITE AND RESPECT OTHERS Mapleleafweb operates these forums in the hopes that they will promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion. We encourage you to speak your mind on relevant issues in a thoughtful way. Please respect others using this board and treat them with respect and dignity. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 Canada, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Trinidad and Tobago, Cuba, Jamaica, Haiti, etc. I would say of that list only Canada and Australia qualify as being in the Western world, and neither ever reached the heights of racism the United States exemplified for over two hundred years, and which lasted into well into the 1960s. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I would say of that list only Canada and Australia qualify as being in the Western world, and neither ever reached the heights of racism the United States exemplified for over two hundred years, and which lasted into well into the 1960s. ...and I would say you know little about the history of racism in Canada...that continues to this day. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shwa Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I've read this over, and I'm not impressed. Is this representative of the sort of scholarship that argues in favor of affirmative action? Not sure if it is representative, but it was pretty easy to find. Foreign-born visible minorities used to have better employment rates than whitey, but in the 1990s that changed.Why might that be? Did Canadians transform into a bunch of racists during the 1990s? Considering that Canadian-born visible minorities had *better* employment rates than whitey, that doesn't seem likely. You are making a fundamental and - by using this thread as a benchmark, oft repeated - mistake in understanding the terms. "Non-visible-minority" does not exclusively refer to "whitey." In a similar way "non-aboriginal" does not exclusively refer to "whitey." Secondly, I am not arguing that affirmative action is not discriminatory - just not "insititutionalized racism" as some posters go on and on about with their fairy tale scenarios. So if you read through the articles, it is a big stretch to see affirmative action as racist. Discriminatory, sure, racist, no. Otherwise, finally someone brings up some issues that can be discussed. Might there be something about the immigrants themselves that changed?For example, is it possible that earlier immigration had tighter standards for the sorts of skills and qualifications that were sought in immigrants? Is it possible that in the 1990s rules were changed to allow larger numbers of non-economic immigrants (ie, people allowed in for family reunification, dependents, etc) than had been allowed in previously? Possible. As well as a change in employment sectors, from manufacturing to service, might have had an impact. The author is either uninformed, or dishonest in attempting to equate a university education with employability. "This pattern contradicts the widely-held view that workers benefit from more skills, education and experience and are in greater demand," she writes, yet fails to explain how a university degree provides experience, or to account for the wide variety of skills that are obtained by other means than attending university. Many of the most in-demand skills are in skilled trades or in specialized areas that are taught at technical schools rather than university. The premise that because a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees, visible minorities should have a higher employment rate is based on broken logic. It fails to take into account the large number of jobs that don't require university degrees. It fails to take into account the large number of jobs that require skills that aren't learned at university. And the fact that a higher percentage of visible minorities have university degrees gives us no insight at all into the qualifications and abilities of those who don't. I think you might be misreading the author - she is saying that their study - among others - contradicts a "widely-held" view. She is not saying that is her view, and in fact her study here contradicts that view: This pattern contradicts the widely-held view that workers benefit from more skills, education and experience and are in greater demand.... Another study found that although visible minorities are more likely to be university-educated than non-visible minorities, this education did not necessarily lead to better jobs or higher income. Clearly the author is either not very smart, or is just plain dishonest in attempting to present this argument. This is an attempt to deceive or mislead. Her argument is that the "widely-held view" is contradicted by the evidence of her study. But she goes on for another page in attempting to argue in that vein anyway, attempting to suggest that the 30% of visible minorities who hold university degrees confer some kind of information as to the qualifications of the 70% who don't. I am not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here. And in the meantime we come to an interesting chart, showing that in 1981, visible minorities (both Canadian born and foreign born) had significantly higher employment rates than Canadian white men. And the adjacent chart shows that in 2001, it was pretty much the same: Canadian born visible minorities had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1960s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1970s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. Foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1980s had better employment rates than Canadian born white men. (if she's trying to prove that visible minorities are discriminated against, this is an odd way of going about it, it seems to me.) But wait, her point is the bar on the very right of the chart, showing that foreign born visible minorities who arrived in the 1960s have worse employment rates than Canadian born white men. When you say, "Canadian born white men" you are referring to Canadian born non-visible-minorities right? Notwithstanding that the bar for Canadian born non-visible-minorities includes - I would think - all age groups of that demographic, it also shows that the longer people are here the lower their unemployment rate. However, if you average all the bars for the unemployment rates for foreign born visible minorities, it comes out to 6.26% which is more or less equal to the unemployment rate of Canadian born non-visible minorities. But again... why? Could it be that maybe these most recent immigrants were simply not as well qualified as earlier immigrants?Ms Tran did tuck a relevant thought on this issue earlier on: Yes, I would suspect that things like not speaking the language, having no experience, and having no credentials probably do adversely affect your chances of getting a job. Are these the people affirmative action is supposed to help? Well, no. Affirmative action's champions insist that race is only supposed to be a factor if the qualifications are equal, affirmative action isn't supposed to give jobs to unqualified people, that it's not supposed to lower the standards. So clearly, people who can't speak the language, have no experience, and have no credentials are not the target group for affirmative action. I have never met a Canadian affirmative action champion refer to race as a factor, have you? If you have, were there enough of them to convince you that all affirmative action processes refer to race as a factor? Now, you have taken the author's words and modified them to suit your point, so let's clarify what the author says and see if affirmative action is supposed to help: Barriers such as lack of fluency in an official language, lack of recognition of educational credentials, lack of relevant Canadian employment experience and discounting of previous work experience outside Canada are obstacles to favourable labour market outcomes. The author's emphasis is on 'lack of,' not 'absence of' as you saying. So, should previous work experience outside of Canada be discounted? Edited January 3, 2011 by Shwa Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) Hardly. Poser. You are still citing American sources, and we don't use it in Canada.Make sure you read your citations before you make claims the articles don't support. The SOP for most stations is that a victim is to be removed from the building as fast as possible. Dragging doesn't do it and the concern for "potential" smoke inhalation is not a priority. Rather without rescue the victim would likely be dead and so if the victim sucks a bit of smoke then it is not an issue as long as we get them out quickly. I'm telling you poser that I have more knowledge and experiences and you are completely and foolishly wrong (again). Give it up you have been pwned (again). The name of the source I have is Firefighting in Canada, and Canadian firefighter and EMS quarterly. You've just proven you don't have the ability or the honesty to check the sources name, let alone read the full article or the about us page. Fire Fighting In CanadaFire Fighting in Canada has a 50-plus year history of educating and informing fire chiefs, senior officers and firefighters in municipal, industrial and military fire departments across the country. The editorial mandate of the magazine is to share news and developments in the industry and provide analysis and commentary on significant happenings in the fire service. Fire Fighting in Canada provides a forum for fire and related emergency-service leaders to share information and succeed in challenging times. The magazine is also a distributor for NFPA products. Fire Fighting in Canada is published eight times a year, in February, March, May, June, August, September, November and December. Canadian Firefighter Canadian Firefighter recognizes the spirit of service, courage and selflessness that is the tradition among fire and emergency medical service workers. As a prime contributor to protection and prevention in the fire and related service industries, both fire and EMS professionals use the magazine as an education and training tool in their departments. This information package comes with the clout of its 30-year history in the industry. Canadian Firefighter is published four times a year, in January, April, July and October. Nope. I'm not into the "Saipan method". I am merely calling a spade, "a spade". We've already established that TrueMetis misappropriated his name and has no true metis lineage. Now he is pretending to be knowledgeable of firefighting equipment and he is clearly out of his league. Calling him a poser is restating a fact, not an ad hominem. No what you have shown is you have a seriously bruised ego and your bloody nuts. I've got a Canadian source, you have nothing. Edited January 3, 2011 by TrueMetis Quote
Shwa Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 I'm honestly confused as to why you or anyone would consider that scenario to even be unlikely, never mind impossible. What race is a visible minority? I said no such thing. I said it cannot be proven false, therefore it is silly to state it is. There it is silly for you to even pretend to have even the simplest clue as to how affirmative action works. Now, if you want to take the actions of your make-believe fairy tale manager and stretch that into a condemnation of the entire system you are free to do so. It only proves the more that you are down a gallon or two of clues. Perhaps so but I think it's hardly a stretch to consider that in a particular case there is only one 'visible minority' candidate, and that the candidate happens to be Black. Nor do I consider it a stretch that a manager under pressure to increase minority representation would choose that candidate over other white candidates. Nor can I really understand how anyone would consider that to be far fetched. What's far fetched is your conclusion based on a fairy tale that you made up on the spot. Far fetches and hilarious actually. My 'ideology' is irrelevent to this discussion. Logic and knowledge of real world application is what's important, and your argument seems entirely lacking in both. Right, oh, I see how it works now... in Bizarro World. Now, had you come up with a "real world" example - and enough of them to be even modestly convincing, you might have a point. But you won't, because you can't. Instead, you prove your "logic and knowledge of real work application" with a made up fairy tale. As you can, the only thing left in this discussion is your ideology, because you got nothing left. (well, except for more fairy tales I suppose) Quote
Saipan Posted January 3, 2011 Report Posted January 3, 2011 What race is a visible minority? All but Caucasians. Quote
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.